A question regarding the fundamental rights of man

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I cannot provide a reference for it. It is from an essay that I am writing myself which is not published. In any event it depends on what you define to be wealth. I define wealth to be one's ability to attain desired ends. In the case of trade one is improving their means to attain ends(which improves their ability to attain the ends) and in turn they are increasing their wealth. You are approaching economics from the top down, I am approching it from the bottom up, sort of through Praxeology which is the study of human action.

If I have an end that I wish to attain which is the consumption of fish and you have an end you wish to attain which is horseback riding and I trade you my horse for your fish, you now have increased your ability to attain your end and I have increased my ability to attain my end. Through this process we have both increased our wealth under my definition of it. By constantly trading means to ends that have lower value to us for means to ends that have higher value to us we create wealth.
============
Clearly then, he is rich who has dominion over desire, for he who wants nothing is rich beyond measure. So a man who prefers to walk is a king compared to a man who desires a horse, but a man requires (needs) fish or some source for amino acids the body cannot self-manufacture. So if by competitive acumen I acquire the oceans of the world, what right have you to complain if I trade fish for your land. Isn't capitalism the means by which some acquire control over the resources required for life.

Suppose the work of government was to see to people's needs by creating technology that supports human life from solar energy, a machine that each person has a right to from birth that uses electricity created from sun shine to create all the chemicals required for life and insures that the number of humans alive does not exceed the reasonable carrying capacity of the planet. Then each person could have wealth beyond measure by the control of desire. So clearly that government is best which provides for everybody's needs.

Well, there is subjective wealth and objective wealth. If someone has a lot of money that is objective wealth, because that person has the ability to acquire the means to commonly desired ends (fast cars, big boats, fancy houses). However, if that wealthy man's only desire is to be the best golfer in the world and he did not have the ability to attain that end then he is subjectively a poor man. You are right, someone who desires nothing is subjectively rich beyond comprehension for they will be in a state of Nirvana for the rest of their lives. However, others will not view them as wealthy because they wouldn't necessarily have the means to commonly desired ends (fast cars, big boats, fancy houses). Actually, it is really a distinction between material wealth and immaterial wealth. Material wealth being the objective wealth (wealth that most can relate to) and immaterial wealth simply being someone's ability to attain ends that cannot be attained purely through material means.

Material and immaterial wealth go hand in hand and in fact you have to have immaterial wealth in order to use material wealth to attain your desired ends. If I have a fast car, this is my material wealth and my ability to drive it is my immaterial wealth. Both of these wealths add to my ability to attain my desired end of driving fast. On the other hand if I were handicapped my ability to drive a car may be diminished at which point my immaterial wealth would also diminish and it could be claimed that I was subjectively poorer.

People in capitalism do acquire the means that are necessary for life but in order to attain their own desired ends they must trade these means for other means to other ends. However, your scenario of a man acquiring the ocean is really a topic of monopolies which is not directly related to the original concept of mutually beneficial trade.

I'm not understanding your scenario with the solar powered machines and government. If food was in infinite abundance then it would no longer become means to an end, it would become a general condition of human welfare. If the solar powered machines were in limited abundance then I assure you that they would be provided best by the free market.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

rights of man

this is getting into the religious realm now.
the definition of "rights" as you are using it is "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."

tradition in our sense typically means English "common law",
nature, typically means "natural laws"
govermental body means the constitution, the laws congress passes, and the how the courts interpret these laws.
you left out "the law of God"

now the problem with each of these concepts is that they are fluid, and not fixed in meaning.

english common law may not be in the tradition of a immigrant from asia
natural laws would clearly differ between cultures
laws passed by congress?? don't even get me started
law of God? who's definition of "God's laws" do you want to use? Jews? Christians?, Muslims?, Hindus? .....

inalienable rights are not innumerable or identifiable.
your argument is based upon a false assumption.

No, I may have entered the philosophical realm but not the religious realm. Even atheists have concepts of morality and rights, which are still independent of law.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

rights of man

this is getting into the religious realm now.
the definition of "rights" as you are using it is "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."

tradition in our sense typically means English "common law",
nature, typically means "natural laws"
govermental body means the constitution, the laws congress passes, and the how the courts interpret these laws.
you left out "the law of God"

now the problem with each of these concepts is that they are fluid, and not fixed in meaning.

english common law may not be in the tradition of a immigrant from asia
natural laws would clearly differ between cultures
laws passed by congress?? don't even get me started
law of God? who's definition of "God's laws" do you want to use? Jews? Christians?, Muslims?, Hindus? .....

inalienable rights are not innumerable or identifiable.
your argument is based upon a false assumption.

No, I may have entered the philosophical realm but not the religious realm. Even atheists have concepts of morality and rights, which are still independent of law.

the declaration of independence says our rights comes from divine appointment.

"We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by thier creator with certain inalienable rights..."

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I cannot provide a reference for it. It is from an essay that I am writing myself which is not published. In any event it depends on what you define to be wealth. I define wealth to be one's ability to attain desired ends. In the case of trade one is improving their means to attain ends(which improves their ability to attain the ends) and in turn they are increasing their wealth. You are approaching economics from the top down, I am approching it from the bottom up, sort of through Praxeology which is the study of human action.

If I have an end that I wish to attain which is the consumption of fish and you have an end you wish to attain which is horseback riding and I trade you my horse for your fish, you now have increased your ability to attain your end and I have increased my ability to attain my end. Through this process we have both increased our wealth under my definition of it. By constantly trading means to ends that have lower value to us for means to ends that have higher value to us we create wealth.
============
Clearly then, he is rich who has dominion over desire, for he who wants nothing is rich beyond measure. So a man who prefers to walk is a king compared to a man who desires a horse, but a man requires (needs) fish or some source for amino acids the body cannot self-manufacture. So if by competitive acumen I acquire the oceans of the world, what right have you to complain if I trade fish for your land. Isn't capitalism the means by which some acquire control over the resources required for life.

Suppose the work of government was to see to people's needs by creating technology that supports human life from solar energy, a machine that each person has a right to from birth that uses electricity created from sun shine to create all the chemicals required for life and insures that the number of humans alive does not exceed the reasonable carrying capacity of the planet. Then each person could have wealth beyond measure by the control of desire. So clearly that government is best which provides for everybody's needs.

Well, there is subjective wealth and objective wealth. If someone has a lot of money that is objective wealth, because that person has the ability to acquire the means to commonly desired ends (fast cars, big boats, fancy houses). However, if that wealthy man's only desire is to be the best golfer in the world and he did not have the ability to attain that end then he is subjectively a poor man. You are right, someone who desires nothing is subjectively rich beyond comprehension for they will be in a state of Nirvana for the rest of their lives. However, others will not view them as wealthy because they wouldn't necessarily have the means to commonly desired ends (fast cars, big boats, fancy houses). Actually, it is really a distinction between material wealth and immaterial wealth. Material wealth being the objective wealth (wealth that most can relate to) and immaterial wealth simply being someone's ability to attain ends that cannot be attained purely through material means.

Material and immaterial wealth go hand in hand and in fact you have to have immaterial wealth in order to use material wealth to attain your desired ends. If I have a fast car, this is my material wealth and my ability to drive it is my immaterial wealth. Both of these wealths add to my ability to attain my desired end of driving fast. On the other hand if I were handicapped my ability to drive a car may be diminished at which point my immaterial wealth would also diminish and it could be claimed that I was subjectively poorer.

People in capitalism do acquire the means that are necessary for life but in order to attain their own desired ends they must trade these means for other means to other ends. However, your scenario of a man acquiring the ocean is really a topic of monopolies which is not directly related to the original concept of mutually beneficial trade.

I'm not understanding your scenario with the solar powered machines and government. If food was in infinite abundance then it would no longer become means to an end, it would become a general condition of human welfare. If the solar powered machines were in limited abundance then I assure you that they would be provided best by the free market.

Dear me, the reply that was written and intended here must have disappeared before I posted.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

rights of man

this is getting into the religious realm now.
the definition of "rights" as you are using it is "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."

tradition in our sense typically means English "common law",
nature, typically means "natural laws"
govermental body means the constitution, the laws congress passes, and the how the courts interpret these laws.
you left out "the law of God"

now the problem with each of these concepts is that they are fluid, and not fixed in meaning.

english common law may not be in the tradition of a immigrant from asia
natural laws would clearly differ between cultures
laws passed by congress?? don't even get me started
law of God? who's definition of "God's laws" do you want to use? Jews? Christians?, Muslims?, Hindus? .....

inalienable rights are not innumerable or identifiable.
your argument is based upon a false assumption.

No, I may have entered the philosophical realm but not the religious realm. Even atheists have concepts of morality and rights, which are still independent of law.

the declaration of independence says our rights comes from divine appointment.

"We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by thier creator with certain inalienable rights..."

Are you sure? Perhaps the way to really read that is to say that our rights are our rights by virtue of self evidence, regardless of how that self evidence is selectively expressed in some particular language in accordance with the conditions at the time of expression. If so than the self evidence will be the pivotal universal experience and not the notion of a creator, for it will be self evident no matter the belief and the 'Creator' only a temporal garnish.

 

[chess9]

No.

-Robert

 

[Moonbeam]

No. Hehe. No.

Yes.

 

[PingSpike]

The government provides certain protections to the market and its participants. In addition, it fosters an envirnoment that free trade florishes in. Do you disagree with this statement?

If you agree with that statement, then what is wrong with a consumption tax? The government has provided a service to the market, and the market can logically be expected to pay for that service in the form of a sales tax or gas tax or whatever.

Just my 2 cents on a consumption tax, I arrived late and didn't read everything here so forgive me if my point was already made.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
The government provides certain protections to the market and its participants. In addition, it fosters an envirnoment that free trade florishes in. Do you disagree with this statement?

If you agree with that statement, then what is wrong with a consumption tax? The government has provided a service to the market, and the market can logically be expected to pay for that service in the form of a sales tax or gas tax or whatever.

Just my 2 cents on a consumption tax, I arrived late and didn't read everything here so forgive me if my point was already made.

Yes, however, if private property protection is the reasn why the government levies these taxes then government's providing of the service of private property protection has cost individuals and businesses way way more than the actual cost of providing this protection. Furthermore, it is not really a matter of offering private protection, it is the manner in which the government taxes. If free trade is a right just like any other right the government through taxation has supressed and disrupted that right. The consumption tax would be a surpression of that right as well because A. The government would force businesses to reveal their transactions (breach of privacy). and B. The government would be taking a portion of each good traded (disruption of right to trade).

 

[chess9]

Moonbeam:

Uh, yeah, you're right! What was I thinking?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PingSpike
The government provides certain protections to the market and its participants. In addition, it fosters an envirnoment that free trade florishes in. Do you disagree with this statement?

If you agree with that statement, then what is wrong with a consumption tax? The government has provided a service to the market, and the market can logically be expected to pay for that service in the form of a sales tax or gas tax or whatever.

Just my 2 cents on a consumption tax, I arrived late and didn't read everything here so forgive me if my point was already made.

Yes, however, if private property protection is the reasn why the government levies these taxes then government's providing of the service of private property protection has cost individuals and businesses way way more than the actual cost of providing this protection. Furthermore, it is not really a matter of offering private protection, it is the manner in which the government taxes. If free trade is a right just like any other right the government through taxation has supressed and disrupted that right. The consumption tax would be a surpression of that right as well because A. The government would force businesses to reveal their transactions (breach of privacy). and B. The government would be taking a portion of each good traded (disruption of right to trade).

I think you're expecting to much out of the government myself. It needs taxes to function and provide public services. The interstate highway system for example increases the capabilities of free trade. While its possible some coalition of businesses would have enventually built it themselves, its unlikely. And if they did, they would likely toll the users of it. You'd just be trading the government control of these things for having a private unregulated business control over it.

While I agree the tax system is messed up now, I think taxes are needed to make things work.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Are you sure? Perhaps the way to really read that is to say that our rights are our rights by virtue of self evidence, regardless of how that self evidence is selectively expressed in some particular language in accordance with the conditions at the time of expression. If so than the self evidence will be the pivotal universal experience and not the notion of a creator, for it will be self evident no matter the belief and the 'Creator' only a temporal garnish.

i am pretty sure "endowed by thier creator with certain inalienible rights" means just what it says. i find revisionists who try thier best to "interpret" something to mean nothing close to what it says very entertaining.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PingSpike
The government provides certain protections to the market and its participants. In addition, it fosters an envirnoment that free trade florishes in. Do you disagree with this statement?

If you agree with that statement, then what is wrong with a consumption tax? The government has provided a service to the market, and the market can logically be expected to pay for that service in the form of a sales tax or gas tax or whatever.

Just my 2 cents on a consumption tax, I arrived late and didn't read everything here so forgive me if my point was already made.

Yes, however, if private property protection is the reasn why the government levies these taxes then government's providing of the service of private property protection has cost individuals and businesses way way more than the actual cost of providing this protection. Furthermore, it is not really a matter of offering private protection, it is the manner in which the government taxes. If free trade is a right just like any other right the government through taxation has supressed and disrupted that right. The consumption tax would be a surpression of that right as well because A. The government would force businesses to reveal their transactions (breach of privacy). and B. The government would be taking a portion of each good traded (disruption of right to trade).

I think you're expecting to much out of the government myself. It needs taxes to function and provide public services. The interstate highway system for example increases the capabilities of free trade. While its possible some coalition of businesses would have enventually built it themselves, its unlikely. And if they did, they would likely toll the users of it. You'd just be trading the government control of these things for having a private unregulated business control over it.

While I agree the tax system is messed up now, I think taxes are needed to make things work.

I think taxation in some form is necessary too, but this is just going back to what was discussed earlier. The idea that the government must surpress the right to free trade in order to exist is unacceptable to me. The form that taxation takes should be in line with our individual rights and there is a tax that is closest to this ideal: a head tax.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PingSpike
The government provides certain protections to the market and its participants. In addition, it fosters an envirnoment that free trade florishes in. Do you disagree with this statement?

If you agree with that statement, then what is wrong with a consumption tax? The government has provided a service to the market, and the market can logically be expected to pay for that service in the form of a sales tax or gas tax or whatever.

Just my 2 cents on a consumption tax, I arrived late and didn't read everything here so forgive me if my point was already made.

Yes, however, if private property protection is the reasn why the government levies these taxes then government's providing of the service of private property protection has cost individuals and businesses way way more than the actual cost of providing this protection. Furthermore, it is not really a matter of offering private protection, it is the manner in which the government taxes. If free trade is a right just like any other right the government through taxation has supressed and disrupted that right. The consumption tax would be a surpression of that right as well because A. The government would force businesses to reveal their transactions (breach of privacy). and B. The government would be taking a portion of each good traded (disruption of right to trade).

I think you're expecting to much out of the government myself. It needs taxes to function and provide public services. The interstate highway system for example increases the capabilities of free trade. While its possible some coalition of businesses would have enventually built it themselves, its unlikely. And if they did, they would likely toll the users of it. You'd just be trading the government control of these things for having a private unregulated business control over it.

While I agree the tax system is messed up now, I think taxes are needed to make things work.

I think taxation in some form is necessary too, but this is just going back to what was discussed earlier. The idea that the government must surpress the right to free trade in order to exist is unacceptable to me. The form that taxation takes should be in line with our individual rights and there is a tax that is closest to this ideal: a head tax.

I guess I just don't think a head tax is feasible. People may be equal in rights, but they aren't equal in means and thus some are unable to pay more and some cannot. Some one (possibly you, I don't remember) posted earlier that the budget for a head tax would require 8500 a year from each person. Assuming thats correct I would be crippled finicially with my ~20,000 a year job. I would be lucky to cover my necessities with that. And I'm better off than many people. To me this just amounts to taxing the poor more and would force a bigger seperation of classes. It takes money to make money, and if you have none you're going to stay poor.

It seems to me that the headtax would do more to thwart an individuals ability to support themselves than anything. In order to go to a higher income bracket, one has to go to college. In addition to ever increasing tuition, you must pay $8500 a year. The tuition is payed for with loans, and now you have to take out another loan for 4 years of taxes to get a degree that isn't worth as much as it used to be. Depending on where you go, the could conceivably double your tuition. (in a sense) Or you would have to work a part time job for the sole purpose of paying your head tax, making the degree more difficult to get.

America is a country based on the idea of starting with nothing, working hard and then prospering. It just seems like a head tax would stand in the way of that...forcing a big disparity between the classes. What incentive do people have to work hard or go to school when they're being held down in the same place. The reason our tax system is unequal is because people ARE unequal.

Of course, I don't envision a head tax anytime soon so the point is probably moot.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PingSpike
The government provides certain protections to the market and its participants. In addition, it fosters an envirnoment that free trade florishes in. Do you disagree with this statement?

If you agree with that statement, then what is wrong with a consumption tax? The government has provided a service to the market, and the market can logically be expected to pay for that service in the form of a sales tax or gas tax or whatever.

Just my 2 cents on a consumption tax, I arrived late and didn't read everything here so forgive me if my point was already made.

Yes, however, if private property protection is the reasn why the government levies these taxes then government's providing of the service of private property protection has cost individuals and businesses way way more than the actual cost of providing this protection. Furthermore, it is not really a matter of offering private protection, it is the manner in which the government taxes. If free trade is a right just like any other right the government through taxation has supressed and disrupted that right. The consumption tax would be a surpression of that right as well because A. The government would force businesses to reveal their transactions (breach of privacy). and B. The government would be taking a portion of each good traded (disruption of right to trade).

I think you're expecting to much out of the government myself. It needs taxes to function and provide public services. The interstate highway system for example increases the capabilities of free trade. While its possible some coalition of businesses would have enventually built it themselves, its unlikely. And if they did, they would likely toll the users of it. You'd just be trading the government control of these things for having a private unregulated business control over it.

While I agree the tax system is messed up now, I think taxes are needed to make things work.

I think taxation in some form is necessary too, but this is just going back to what was discussed earlier. The idea that the government must surpress the right to free trade in order to exist is unacceptable to me. The form that taxation takes should be in line with our individual rights and there is a tax that is closest to this ideal: a head tax.

I guess I just don't think a head tax is feasible. People may be equal in rights, but they aren't equal in means and thus some are unable to pay more and some cannot. Some one (possibly you, I don't remember) posted earlier that the budget for a head tax would require 8500 a year from each person. Assuming thats correct I would be crippled finicially with my ~20,000 a year job. I would be lucky to cover my necessities with that. And I'm better off than many people. To me this just amounts to taxing the poor more and would force a bigger seperation of classes. It takes money to make money, and if you have none you're going to stay poor.

It seems to me that the headtax would do more to thwart an individuals ability to support themselves than anything. In order to go to a higher income bracket, one has to go to college. In addition to ever increasing tuition, you must pay $8500 a year. The tuition is payed for with loans, and now you have to take out another loan for 4 years of taxes to get a degree that isn't worth as much as it used to be. Depending on where you go, the could conceivably double your tuition. (in a sense) Or you would have to work a part time job for the sole purpose of paying your head tax, making the degree more difficult to get.

America is a country based on the idea of starting with nothing, working hard and then prospering. It just seems like a head tax would stand in the way of that...forcing a big disparity between the classes. What incentive do people have to work hard or go to school when they're being held down in the same place. The reason our tax system is unequal is because people ARE unequal.

Of course, I don't envision a head tax anytime soon so the point is probably moot.

Wrong, the head tax would not require $8500 a year per person. That would be what would be required if the tax was revenue neutral which it is not. I think the government could get by just fine on $1,000 a year per person without increasing the deficit. That would be $1,000 a year per man, woman and child and would generate about $300 billion a year in revenue. The homeless and others unable to pay could get a private charity to pay their head tax and I'm virtually 100% certain such charities would be created. The difference is that this would not be an act derived from coercion but an act derived from genuine goodwill.

I don't envision a head tax anytime soon either, but getting back to the original point: it is the tax that is most in line with the idea that free trade is a right and there is no rational reason that I can think of for why it is not a right.

However, this is straying from the point and I wrote an entire essay on the head tax which is in the archives if you want to search for it, just to go search and type: head tax.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: SuperTool
We get it, you don't want to pay taxes. You don't have to keep coming up with these lame arguements.

Wrong, it is not that I do not want to pay taxes, it is that I question the fundamental philoshopical morality of the current tax system. If you wish to call my arguments lame, go ahead but please indicate the area in which my arguments break down for this is the ultimate way to truly show how lame they are. Simply stating that they are lame without showing exactly why or how serves no purpose.

Furthermore, I am currently not obligated to pay taxes since my current income is below the taxation threshold (except for FICA of course). I am exploring these issues because they apply to everyone.

OK, what do you want? Do you want a consumption tax? Because I thought rightwingers were against consumption taxes with these gas tax ads they've been running against Kerry.

No, I want a head tax. I used to be a proponent of the consumption tax until I realized that the consumption tax is supression of the right to free trade, just as an income tax is. I'm not a right winger, a right winger is someone who is an extreme conservative. This includes surpression of freedoms relating to social issues, which I'm against.

Do the math. You want a $8K tax per every living man woman and child? A poor family of 4 will be happy to know you want them to pay $32K in taxes. Suppression of the right of the free trade? Have you lost your mind entirely, that you would rather suppress working families than free trade?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: SuperTool
We get it, you don't want to pay taxes. You don't have to keep coming up with these lame arguements.

Wrong, it is not that I do not want to pay taxes, it is that I question the fundamental philoshopical morality of the current tax system. If you wish to call my arguments lame, go ahead but please indicate the area in which my arguments break down for this is the ultimate way to truly show how lame they are. Simply stating that they are lame without showing exactly why or how serves no purpose.

Furthermore, I am currently not obligated to pay taxes since my current income is below the taxation threshold (except for FICA of course). I am exploring these issues because they apply to everyone.

OK, what do you want? Do you want a consumption tax? Because I thought rightwingers were against consumption taxes with these gas tax ads they've been running against Kerry.

No, I want a head tax. I used to be a proponent of the consumption tax until I realized that the consumption tax is supression of the right to free trade, just as an income tax is. I'm not a right winger, a right winger is someone who is an extreme conservative. This includes surpression of freedoms relating to social issues, which I'm against.

Do the math. You want a $8K tax per every living man woman and child? A poor family of 4 will be happy to know you want them to pay $32K in taxes. Suppression of the right of the free trade? Have you lost your mind entirely, that you would rather suppress working families than free trade?

LoL, read a couple posts up. You will realize that this is not what I want.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Are you sure? Perhaps the way to really read that is to say that our rights are our rights by virtue of self evidence, regardless of how that self evidence is selectively expressed in some particular language in accordance with the conditions at the time of expression. If so than the self evidence will be the pivotal universal experience and not the notion of a creator, for it will be self evident no matter the belief and the 'Creator' only a temporal garnish.

i am pretty sure "endowed by thier creator with certain inalienible rights" means just what it says. i find revisionists who try thier best to "interpret" something to mean nothing close to what it says very entertaining.

As you probably know most fools are amused by truth so the presence of your amusement, while probably intended to insulate your opinion in your own mind beyond a need for analysis, actually tells me nothing at all. Also you seem to assume you interpret less than I. My point is that you and the Forefathers can and could have had no real agreement on who the Creator is. Why for example, did they not use the word God. The Creator to you is what you imagine it to be. But we know from monkey studies that they fully and genetically understand fair play, that this sense is inalienable in them. What Creator put it there making it so self evident?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
No. Hehe. No.

Yes.

Originally posted by: chess9
Moonbeam:

Uh, yeah, you're right! What was I thinking?

That was a yes to no.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
. . . we know from monkey studies that they fully and genetically understand fair play, that this sense is inalienable in them.

"monkey studies" . . . Heh, heh. Are you referring to the monkeys here @ P&N?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Wrong, the head tax would not require $8500 a year per person. That would be what would be required if the tax was revenue neutral which it is not. I think the government could get by just fine on $1,000 a year per person without increasing the deficit. That would be $1,000 a year per man, woman and child and would generate about $300 billion a year in revenue. The homeless and others unable to pay could get a private charity to pay their head tax and I'm virtually 100% certain such charities would be created. The difference is that this would not be an act derived from coercion but an act derived from genuine goodwill.

I don't envision a head tax anytime soon either, but getting back to the original point: it is the tax that is most in line with the idea that free trade is a right and there is no rational reason that I can think of for why it is not a right.

However, this is straying from the point and I wrote an entire essay on the head tax which is in the archives if you want to search for it, just to go search and type: head tax.

Why do you think it would be only be $1000 per person? That seems awfully low when you consider the tax revenue you are eliminating, and the costs of all of our defense, civil, etc. Your system might be feasible, despite some signifigant flaws, if this were true. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that. You're eliminating all corporate taxes, a huge source of revenue, and then allowing them to use public resources that individuals payed for, like the interstate, etc.

Frankly, I found the $8500 more believable than the 1000 you suggested, but I won't pretend to be an expert on the countries budget.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Wrong, the head tax would not require $8500 a year per person. That would be what would be required if the tax was revenue neutral which it is not. I think the government could get by just fine on $1,000 a year per person without increasing the deficit. That would be $1,000 a year per man, woman and child and would generate about $300 billion a year in revenue. The homeless and others unable to pay could get a private charity to pay their head tax and I'm virtually 100% certain such charities would be created. The difference is that this would not be an act derived from coercion but an act derived from genuine goodwill.

I don't envision a head tax anytime soon either, but getting back to the original point: it is the tax that is most in line with the idea that free trade is a right and there is no rational reason that I can think of for why it is not a right.

However, this is straying from the point and I wrote an entire essay on the head tax which is in the archives if you want to search for it, just to go search and type: head tax.

Why do you think it would be only be $1000 per person? That seems awfully low when you consider the tax revenue you are eliminating, and the costs of all of our defense, civil, etc. Your system might be feasible, despite some signifigant flaws, if this were true. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that. You're eliminating all corporate taxes, a huge source of revenue, and then allowing them to use public resources that individuals payed for, like the interstate, etc.

Frankly, I found the $8500 more believable than the 1000 you suggested, but I won't pretend to be an expert on the countries budget.

It should only be $1,000 per person because there must be limits on the size of government. The reason why is kind of complicated and relates to end ranking signals within individuals and the distortion of those signals when expressed relating to public goods. I've been writing an entire essay on this and I won't post it here, but that's the general reason. The fact that the government in its current state has absolutely no limits to its size is very bad.

Defense spending is way out of control and it could certainly be drastically reduced without giving up the fact that no country can pose a threat to the U.S. I think defense spending of about $40 billion a year would be adequate, this of course would entail pulling U.S. troops out of foreign countries. I don't think that the U.S. has to have troops at the physical location in order to impose threats on nations in the world that bully and threaten certain democracies.

It is interesting that you brought up the interstate system. I actually believe that this should be sold off to private companies who would then determine how this is to be paid for. The highways are a supply of a good just like anything else and the demand for this good is obviously exceeding the supply because the link between payment and consumption is broken. I think its paid for by gas taxes in my state, California but this does not mean that an equilibrium price is met. If the roads were turned over to a private company that company would be held accountable for traffic jams which would respond a lot better to market signals than the government does. The highway system is one of the only areas where I believe it should be a government regulated monopoly.

As for corporations, they consist of individuals so those individuals in the corporation should be allowed to partake in public goods. If the corporation or anyone imposes a cost on government then they should pay for that cost. For instance if it costs the government money to maintain public records regarding private ownership of property then the corporation that imposes that cost should pay for it. In other words the government could still sell services in certain areas as it does today.

 

[Moonbeam]

Money should be based not on what you have or have earned, but on what you don't have and give away. He who creates the most and gives it away and uses the least should have the most negative money. He with the greatest negative money should be the richest in respect and influence. Those who want things can live in the poverty of gifts given to them by the rich who have gotten rich by denying themselves these things.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Wrong, the head tax would not require $8500 a year per person. That would be what would be required if the tax was revenue neutral which it is not. I think the government could get by just fine on $1,000 a year per person without increasing the deficit. That would be $1,000 a year per man, woman and child and would generate about $300 billion a year in revenue. The homeless and others unable to pay could get a private charity to pay their head tax and I'm virtually 100% certain such charities would be created. The difference is that this would not be an act derived from coercion but an act derived from genuine goodwill.

I don't envision a head tax anytime soon either, but getting back to the original point: it is the tax that is most in line with the idea that free trade is a right and there is no rational reason that I can think of for why it is not a right.

However, this is straying from the point and I wrote an entire essay on the head tax which is in the archives if you want to search for it, just to go search and type: head tax.

Why do you think it would be only be $1000 per person? That seems awfully low when you consider the tax revenue you are eliminating, and the costs of all of our defense, civil, etc. Your system might be feasible, despite some signifigant flaws, if this were true. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that. You're eliminating all corporate taxes, a huge source of revenue, and then allowing them to use public resources that individuals payed for, like the interstate, etc.

Frankly, I found the $8500 more believable than the 1000 you suggested, but I won't pretend to be an expert on the countries budget.

It should only be $1,000 per person because there must be limits on the size of government. The reason why is kind of complicated and relates to end ranking signals within individuals and the distortion of those signals when expressed relating to public goods. I've been writing an entire essay on this and I won't post it here, but that's the general reason. The fact that the government in its current state has absolutely no limits to its size is very bad.

Defense spending is way out of control and it could certainly be drastically reduced without giving up the fact that no country can pose a threat to the U.S. I think defense spending of about $40 billion a year would be adequate, this of course would entail pulling U.S. troops out of foreign countries. I don't think that the U.S. has to have troops at the physical location in order to impose threats on nations in the world that bully and threaten certain democracies.

It is interesting that you brought up the interstate system. I actually believe that this should be sold off to private companies who would then determine how this is to be paid for. The highways are a supply of a good just like anything else and the demand for this good is obviously exceeding the supply because the link between payment and consumption is broken. I think its paid for by gas taxes in my state, California but this does not mean that an equilibrium price is met. If the roads were turned over to a private company that company would be held accountable for traffic jams which would respond a lot better to market signals than the government does. The highway system is one of the only areas where I believe it should be a government regulated monopoly.

As for corporations, they consist of individuals so those individuals in the corporation should be allowed to partake in public goods. If the corporation or anyone imposes a cost on government then they should pay for that cost. For instance if it costs the government money to maintain public records regarding private ownership of property then the corporation that imposes that cost should pay for it. In other words the government could still sell services in certain areas as it does today.

1. Please go and find out what the current US Budget is. (for those that are not into actual research the answer is $2.2 trillion for 2005)

2. If you can find a way to make the country work with the small fraction (13%) of that budget that you are proposing ($300 billion), you should put it in a book and run for office.

3. How do you tax the prisoners, mentally handicapped, laid off workers, injured on the job and on disability etc.... with $1K being the rule (even though they were right when saying it would be at least $3k per head on this kind of a plan.)

4. How many companies are you going to put out of business by forcing them to raise minimum wage to at least $12/hr so that the employees can afford have a home, vehicle (or annual bus fare) and food?

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Wrong, the head tax would not require $8500 a year per person. That would be what would be required if the tax was revenue neutral which it is not. I think the government could get by just fine on $1,000 a year per person without increasing the deficit. That would be $1,000 a year per man, woman and child and would generate about $300 billion a year in revenue. The homeless and others unable to pay could get a private charity to pay their head tax and I'm virtually 100% certain such charities would be created. The difference is that this would not be an act derived from coercion but an act derived from genuine goodwill.

I don't envision a head tax anytime soon either, but getting back to the original point: it is the tax that is most in line with the idea that free trade is a right and there is no rational reason that I can think of for why it is not a right.

However, this is straying from the point and I wrote an entire essay on the head tax which is in the archives if you want to search for it, just to go search and type: head tax.

Why do you think it would be only be $1000 per person? That seems awfully low when you consider the tax revenue you are eliminating, and the costs of all of our defense, civil, etc. Your system might be feasible, despite some signifigant flaws, if this were true. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that. You're eliminating all corporate taxes, a huge source of revenue, and then allowing them to use public resources that individuals payed for, like the interstate, etc.

Frankly, I found the $8500 more believable than the 1000 you suggested, but I won't pretend to be an expert on the countries budget.

It should only be $1,000 per person because there must be limits on the size of government. The reason why is kind of complicated and relates to end ranking signals within individuals and the distortion of those signals when expressed relating to public goods. I've been writing an entire essay on this and I won't post it here, but that's the general reason. The fact that the government in its current state has absolutely no limits to its size is very bad.

Defense spending is way out of control and it could certainly be drastically reduced without giving up the fact that no country can pose a threat to the U.S. I think defense spending of about $40 billion a year would be adequate, this of course would entail pulling U.S. troops out of foreign countries. I don't think that the U.S. has to have troops at the physical location in order to impose threats on nations in the world that bully and threaten certain democracies.

It is interesting that you brought up the interstate system. I actually believe that this should be sold off to private companies who would then determine how this is to be paid for. The highways are a supply of a good just like anything else and the demand for this good is obviously exceeding the supply because the link between payment and consumption is broken. I think its paid for by gas taxes in my state, California but this does not mean that an equilibrium price is met. If the roads were turned over to a private company that company would be held accountable for traffic jams which would respond a lot better to market signals than the government does. The highway system is one of the only areas where I believe it should be a government regulated monopoly.

As for corporations, they consist of individuals so those individuals in the corporation should be allowed to partake in public goods. If the corporation or anyone imposes a cost on government then they should pay for that cost. For instance if it costs the government money to maintain public records regarding private ownership of property then the corporation that imposes that cost should pay for it. In other words the government could still sell services in certain areas as it does today.

1. Please go and find out what the current US Budget is. (for those that are not into actual research the answer is $2.2 trillion for 2005)

2. If you can find a way to make the country work with the small fraction (13%) of that budget that you are proposing ($300 billion), you should put it in a book and run for office.

3. How do you tax the prisoners, mentally handicapped, laid off workers, injured on the job and on disability etc.... with $1K being the rule (even though they were right when saying it would be at least $3k per head on this kind of a plan.)

4. How many companies are you going to put out of business by forcing them to raise minimum wage to at least $12/hr so that the employees can afford have a home, vehicle (or annual bus fare) and food?